Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by T-Rzeznik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reaper_set_track_automation_mode

Idempotent

Set a track's automation mode to control playback of written envelopes. Choose from trim, read, touch, write, latch, or latch preview.

Instructions

Set a track's automation mode (trim/read/touch/write/latch/latch_preview).

Set to 'read' for written envelopes to play back.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "track_index": "<track_index>",
      "mode": "<mode>"
    },
    "name": "reaper_set_track_automation_mode"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_indexYes0-based track index
modeYesAutomation mode to apply

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that setting 'read' enables playback of envelopes, but does not disclose other side effects, error conditions, or behavior for other modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: first states purpose and lists options, second gives a key functional hint. No redundant words, front-loaded, every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple state-setting tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the most important behavioral nuance (read mode for playback). Only missing explanations for other modes, but enum names are self-explanatory to domain users.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description lists the enum values from the schema but does not add new semantic information (e.g., meaning of each mode) beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it sets a track's automation mode and lists all valid modes (trim/read/touch/write/latch/latch_preview). The verb 'set' combined with a specific resource differentiates it from sibling tools that affect other track properties.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides one usage hint: set to 'read' for written envelopes to play back. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other track settings tools) and does not mention when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools